Have to admit, I don't even read the articles about China anymore before immediately going to the comments section - it is both hilarious and disturbing how Team China's chip-on-sholder defensiveness manifests itself in these the hyperventalating anger of these posts. It would be interesting to know what percentage are paid members of the "50 cent brigade" (probably most) and which are simply expressing the touchiness and tendency to resort to threats of violence for which China is quickly becoming known. China is the Germany of the 20th Century (without the intellectual accomplishments of Germany). "May you live in intresting times", indeed.

So? In 1900 Germany was very technologically advanced. The PRC, however, has no technology or IP that anyone wants. The biggest exporter of IP, by far, is the US. Accordingly, you comment makes no sense.

With an R&D of the EU and US combined, China will be soon in the position of having the biggest IP helped further by the NSA & CIA's inability to deliver, as there spying for IP Ideas worldwide is found out and recorded thanks to Snowdon, therefore the stolen US IP will suffer greatly and diminish all together....

I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I think it's important to communicate and share our differing views. On the other hand, I feel bad about how ridiculous they look when they froth and foam over some perceived slight to their national dignity.

Go and tell your Boss;
More than 500 of the world's leading authors, including five Nobel prize winners, have condemned the scale of state surveillance revealed by the whistleblower Edward Snowden and warned that spy agencies are undermining democracy and must be curbed by a new international charter.

That is from the point of view of the west that try to weaken China, Waht about those western country said with the war criminal GEORGE W.BUSH that instigating attacked of IRAQ by cheating and convincing the world about mass destruction weaponry owned by Iraqis goverment THAT NEVER EXIST, AND THE WAR CRIMINAL AMERICAN PRESIDENT JUST SCOOT FREE? WHY NOT A SINGLE WESTERN GOVERMENT DEMANDED GEORGE W.BUSH TO BE TRIED IN WAR CRIMINAL TRIBUNE IN DENHAG? IS IT BECAUSE AMERICAN IS A WESTERN COUNTRY? WHILE EVERY CHINESE MOVED IS ALWAYS WRONG? i'M NOT STUPID! IT IS FACT THAT THE ISLAND BELONG TO CHINA, AND JAPAN IS A COUNTRY HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF CRIME OF HUMANITY JUST LIKE THE WESTERN COLONIALIST AND AMERICAN WAR CRAZY COUNTRY.

Most agree that the Iraq war was wrong. But that does not make China's aggressive expansionism right. China invaded Tibet and Korea in the 1950's and Vietnamese, Philippino and Indian territory more recently. China also has territorial disputes with Taiwan, Japan and Indonesia. China is not exactly whiter-than-white.

This writer: D.Z must be a fool. World documented history has been more than 5000 years. China found those islands 600 years ago, much earlier than 1884, when Japan occupied these Chinese islands. Even American president Roosevelt wanted to return those islands including whole Okinawa back to China during world war II - Caro Agreement in 1942.
Mr/Ms. D.Z, as a writer for Economist, do you agree that Paris should be part of Germany, since German once occupied Paris during the War. ;)

I believe Mr/Ms DZ is not a fool. But he/she doesn't deserve a place in the top quality newspapers like TE. Of course, he/she may have some special political identities we don't know. Anyway, please write something really useful and constructive so that we readers do have thorough understandings about the subject in concern. Don't waste our time with these pieces of incomplete information and hence biased and subjective conclusion.

They actually belong to the family of a short-tailed albatross named Fred whose claim dates back 7,467 generations. Trust me on this; the rock-solid documentation dates back to the bird poop of his revered ancestors.

A very simplistic account of the dispute. This does not take into consideration historical facts including what right has the United States to Give sovereignty to japan without china being involved in1971.

The US Govt has NEVER EVER given the sovereignty of the DAIOYU Isls to Japan ...Never

The US merely appointed its "running dog" Japan -- to administer the islands

To do all the dirty work like cleaning after the garbage and post some toilet cleaners on the island

The US == when it cunningly planted this "POISON PILL" (Diaoyu) to Japan, in 1971, --- knew that one day--- China and Japan will go to war over this matter

SO WHAT ??? if China-Japan goes to war

Under the US=Japan Defense Treaty --- Clause (5) says clearly that , Since, the Diaoyu is Japan's "administered" territory and NOT Japan's "Sovereign" territory ----- ONLY means that the US is not required to send fighting men to fight on Japan's behalf ------ it only require to provide some "assist" ie a few guns, bullets --- that's all

Clever, crafty Americans --- could have fooled us

THAT IS WHY --- you do not see V-P Biden demanding that China cancel its ADIZ --- the US clearly knows that China have a right over Diaoyu ---Pres ROOSEVELT and Pres TRUMAN had demanded in 1944, and 1945 that Japan return the Diaoyu to China

Is nothing sacred in this world????? Why is Pres Obama not demanding that the Potsdam Declaration be honored???

Pres Roosevelt and Truman would be so ashamed of this DIS-HONOR on the US part today

When two kids get into a fight, do you blame the adults? No. Japan and China shouldn't blame the US. When Pakistan and the smelly Indians fight do they blame the US ? No.

Maybe the US should have butt out, and said "Ok, Japan you get to keep Taiwan and Korea, because its none of our business". Maybe you friends the Soviets should have taken over Japan, Korea and SEA instead of the US.

Maybe we should stop caring which government owns what and just start living our lives. Face it: the Chinese government doesn't give a damn about its citizens, and the Japanese government doesn't give a damn about its citizens either. So maybe you shouldn't give a damn about your government either. We are just pawns in the big game, people. Focus on your family and your friends, no matter the nationality that happens to be written in their passports. It's just a paper book, you know. We're being totally ridiculous fighting or even caring about it. Don't let any government use you. They will not return the favour. Ever.

Japan's government is a democratic one, so it is responsible to its citizens. The PRC government is not. That it not to say that the islands belong to Japan, only to point out that the two goverments are not morally or politically equal.

What a good logic! From now on, I can teach our kids that once someone rob you of your belongings by forces,you should accept the reality and respect the one who wielded the knife before you. Don't try to unilaterally change the status quo.

That actually is kind of what the law says. Look up adverse possession some time. If someone takes your stuff and you never bother to do anything about it, it's theirs. Leaving aside the really questionable interpretation of history that is necessary to say that the Chinese ever owned it in the first place, it has been Japanese territory for over 100 years, and making revanchist claims to territory lost in the time of your great-great-grandfathers is only a good idea if you're looking to cause a war, as the history of the 20th century shows.

I recommend you to read the Cairo Declaration in 1943 where Japan was required to return all the territories they had stolen (yes, "stolen" was the word used in the document), referring to the territories that were ceded by Qing Dynasty which included Diaoyu.

"it has been Japanese territory for over 100 years"
That's so wrong.
To begin with, Japan, as a political entity ceased to exist, bankrupted, liquidated, by the instrument of 'unconditional surrender' of 1945. Japan was later formed, reconstituted, in 1952. And the new constitution defined Japan's political structure and its territory of 'four major islands'. How can a non-existant Japan holds territory during 1945 to 1952? From 1952 to 1972 Japan did not hold any territory beyond the 'four major islands', neither legally nor practically. And after 1972, it has legally ambiguous 'administrative' control of Diaoyu island.
Even the rabidly pro-Japan author of this 'Economist Explains' dares not claim that Japan owns Diaoyu for over 100 years, but only relies on juggle rule of 'possession is nine tenth of owership'. It just shows that 'once a colonist, always a thug'.

"Japan, as a political entity ceased to exist,"
`
Actually no. The Japanese government persisted. It didn't get turfed out like the German Nazi government.
`
The Occupation actually worked through the Japanese government, even as it pursued purges of militarists and those close to the army, etc..
`
And recall the constitution that was promulgated in 1946?

Thank you very much for your reply. You taught me something I have never imagined before. Well, am I right saying that the ultimate law in our world is POWER? If yes, I'm sure Chinese government is on the right track and will obtain what they want sooner or later.

Clearly a mistake by Allied Forces. While no German will openly call Gdansk a 'German territory', many Japanese were led to believe that there is no such place called Iwo Jima (talk about white-wash history, the name Iwo Jima was wiped out).

Anyway the nominally survival of emperor did not change the fact that Japan did not own Diaoyu for 100 years. So maybe it's not a chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation), but a chapter 11 (reorganization) within four major islands, bankruptcy?

By that logic, Taiwan should have it's claim to mainland china accepted as the Peoples Republic of China is a new state that was formed when the former rightful rulers were forcefully evicted to the Republic of China (Taiwan) by the Maoist revolution.

Of course this is a rediculous statement, but no more so than your own.

That's amazingly ignorant and moronic. A case of competing claim to a sovereignty is equal to a case of ceasing and unconditional surrendering of sovereignty to a foreign occupying force?

Japan's case has a modern parallel, that's Iraq under provisional government of Mr. Breman(?). Iraq's sovereignty was ceased and suspended (I think it became a charge of UN) until later when Iraq was reconstituted, --- and here is the most relevant point to the current topic, so I'll type in caps --- MINUS ALL THE TERRITORY IT STOLE FROM NEIGHBORS!

I am sure someone out there will insist that Iraq had a continuing and functioning sovereignty throughout that time, represented by the grand imam of shia islam, or the head of shinto temple in case of Japan. But that's looney tune material, not for discussion here, understood?

@Christina Feng
Indeed contributors are recommended to read the Cairo Declaration, especially since it is a remarkably short document that can be read in a minute or so.http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/cairo.asp
As you point out, it requires the return of all territories ‘stolen from the Chinese’. But if, as the Japanese government claims, it rightfully annexed the islands in 1895, they were, by definition, not stolen. As a necessary but not sufficient requirement, this part of the declaration only applies if it can be shown that the annexation was not rightful. To put it another way, the use of the word ‘stolen’ neither helps nor hinders the Chinese case.

... and that all the territories Japan has stolen form the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.
Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. ...

Hence the point is, if someone claims he got something RIGHTFULLY, but another one (claim himself owner)raises objection, how should the dispute be resolved? I believe the majority of people will agree negotiation is the best way to solve it.

According to the paragraph 2 of the above article by D.Z.,... Japan annexed the islands in 1895 shortly after it defeated the weaken China in a brief war.... Can we see this as an rightful action? Is it reasonable to conclude that Japan took the islands by VIOLENCE and GREED?

Ah but, it says “all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.” The second half of the previous sentence deals with China’s claim, whereas this one covers everything else not dealt with so far, and so is not relevant to the islands.
.
The more I think about it, the less important the Cairo Declaration seems to be. To make progress in its argument, China must establish that Japan could not rightfully annex the islands in 1895, and this seems to be the approach of the Chinese government and academics. Thinking back on news reports I have read over the years, I recall them going on about what happened in history before the annexation, and don’t recall anything about the Declaration. I don’t claim perfection for my memory, but earlier history seems to be by far the main subject of debate.

@aLittleTimeToSpare
Your argument went back to TE's flawed opinion again. China has annexed those islands centuries before Japan. Japan only "discovered" it in 1884. And Japan's annexation was considered "steal" as described in Cairo Declaration, never considered a legal action.
It is interesting that you used the word "rightfully". Do you consider people being coerced or tortured to sign a confession or agreement is a rightful thing? There are plenty examples in U.S. I see its roots here now also. I bet you also agree that Guantamana is rightful.

If you read my previous message carefully, you will find no opinion for, or against, the rightfulness of Japan’s annexation. My view is simply that the Cairo Declaration does not support the claim of either country. When signing the Declaration, I feel certain that the participants did not think for a moment about whether these particular islands had been stolen. They had too many other, bigger and more vital, things to think about.
.
I do not understand why you bring up the subjects in your last three sentences, and even think you can guess my opinion. I can see no relevance to this discussion.

I see your points. Hence, the Japanese Government (not the Japanese) can cunningly and cheekily claim that the Cairo Declaration does not apply to the islands for at least 3 reasons:
1. the declaration specifies the return of STOLEN areas in China only;
2. China has no part in any territories taken by Japan by violence and greed, since the second part of the declaration concerns other countries only;
3. above all, the declaration only specifies any islands and territories seized and occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914. Therefore, those areas taken before this time are excluded.

Some advice to all Chinese:
Don't believe in any bullshits like JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, MORALITY, INTEGRITY. The only law governing the universe is Darwin's 'Survival of the fittest'. When you are mighty enough, all you do are rightful.

Err, no, that’s not what I mean (tho’ perhaps you’re not 100% serious).
The ‘other’ means places not previously dealt with, even though some of those were definitely “taken by violence and greed”. Places stolen from China before 1914 are not excluded either, because as an example, Taiwan is mentioned in the Declaration, and that was taken before then. Nevertheless, the clause with refers to 1914, only applies to “islands in the Pacific”, and I doubt the signatories intended Chinese territories to be included.

Any sensible and logical arguments are welcome. As I have mentioned before, I just want to read something really useful and constructive so that we can have thorough understandings about the subject in concern. Articles with these pieces of incomplete information and hence biased and subjective conclusion is really a WASTE of time.

So the Japan would have had to have invade the islands in 1895 by violence and greed for China's claim to have any validity. The Japanese claimed terra nullis in 1895 as the islands had never been inhabited.
It seems to me that the Chinese would have to show that they had settled the islands, not just discovered them, prior to 1895, for the Japanese annexation to be considered an unlawful invasion. And from what I've heard in these comments, that does not seem to be the case.

"and I doubt the signatories intended Chinese territories to be included."

You are really kidding, or are you just being facetitious. There were only 3 signatories of the Cairo Declaration : China, US & Britain. Stalin didn't show up.

What do you think China was there for -- silent observer, or just to serve tea ?? What a foolish statement. China was one of the victors of war -- a war that the Chinese people paid with a high price, so much so that they were able to tie down a million Japanese forces that could hve otherwise aggressively engaged the Allied forces. Read Rana Mitter's "Forgotten Ally"
Even the scholars at the Pentagon admits to that. The Chinese defenders made such humongous sacrifices so that the WWII doesn't creep over to the US mainland. SO please!!! Don't INSULT the great contributions of the honorable Chinese war heroes. As victor they deserved more than the back side slap of some copper headed snake friends.

You have misread my message.
Please read the Cairo Declaration, and then reread the following sentence from my previous message:
.
‘Nevertheless, the clause with (mistake: should be “which”) refers to 1914, only applies to “islands in the Pacific”, and I doubt the signatories intended Chinese territories to be included.’
.
I am only saying that the 1914 cut off does *not* apply to the Senkakus. The Declaration, therefore, does *not* disqualify China’s claim.
.
The remainder of you comment suggests the source of your error. If you read while expecting an insult, you will see evidence for it even where it does not exist.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/expeditions/2013/06/07/the-senkakudi... .u can take it up with scientific American... also the Anglo Saxon Greed model: 1986 Devaluation of USD, deregulation, Free Trade, comsumeristic Chinese State, dimishiment of USA middle class...2008 ended in disaster economically..why wouldnt the Western Model of foreign policy end any differently? 1895-Japanese hegemony starts..ends in 1945,,1982-UN 215 mile starts...China is just getting started..as Bob Dylan said in 1983:

We do have a lot of good Think Tanks to help US to screw up the world such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Now, if we screw up Japan, China and Korea, it will be real neat. We don't have to pay the IOU and survived as top dog another few decades without much stress!! What do we care about the Japanese, they are just good for temporary shield.

The official letters written by the Japanese Minister of Information and the Japanese Home Minister in 1894, to the Japanese Emperor, objecting to the annexation of the Diaoyu shows that ---- at that time, in 1894 --- the Japanese Govt knew already that China is the rightful owner of the Diaoyu

I am surprised that Economist published such an article without thorough study of history. The author(s) said that Japan claimed the discovery of the islands in 1884, apparently they didn't know that China has written records of Diaoyu as early as Ming Dynasty (13th century) and was labeled in a map made in 1562. I understand that Economists are not historians, however, this shouldn't be an excuse for them to manipulate their influence in contemporary international affairs. A couple of facts I'd like to point out briefly: Okinawa-ken had been an independent kingdom (Liuqiu Kingdom or Uruma Kingdom) until about 130 years ago, but it remained affiliated to China until 16th century when it started paying tribute to both China and Japan. Japan invaded Liuqiu Kingdom in 1609 and officially included it in 1872. In fact, the first map made by Japanese that included Diaoyu was made in 1785 while Liuqiu was still independent, and the map referred to a Chinese map about that region and kept the name Diaoyu in the map. It is hard to believe that China, despite kept 500 years relationship with Liuqiu Kingdom before Japan ever entered into the play, never found the islands between the mainland and the Liuqiu Kingdom. On the other hand, Janpan claimed its discovery in very recent 1884 is exactly a proof that it didn't go that far east until it annexed Liuqiu Kingdom.
I would suggest the Economist authors to study history till a bit further time and consult more resources and analysis before offering such an explanation. History didn't begin just when Japan claimed something.

So now Okinawa is Chinese? Was Timbuktu discovered by Zheng He in 1420?. I'm sure the fact that Timbuktu is in the middle of the Sahara desert and Zheng He travelled by boat won't convince you otherwise.

Actually she is closer to the truth on Okinawa than many others, including the bit about Okinawa getting hauled in officially into Japan in 1872 (as a han), as opposed to the widely cited date of 1879, when it was converted into a prefecture.
`
However, she seems to overlook the extent of control the Satsuma exercised over Okinawa. The Ryukyu kingdom was independent in name only really. The protectorate was under pretty active management of the Satsuma, who were not the gentlest of rulers…although smart enough not to cut ties with China or bring Okinawa into Japan formally. The Satsuma benefitted from having Okinawa as a grey zone of sorts.

the previous comment, never claimed Okinawa is Chinese, but that they were a tributary state before being annexed. and simply that the ISLANDS were discovered by Chinese, or by someone OTHER than Japanese well before 1884, as the Economist article states.

You cannot discover something which was already known. Well, the Japanese did not know about the islands before 1884, so they could have discovered it for themselves, from a Japan centric view of the world. They came across something which they did not know of before. Also, when you are doing a land grab in 1884, you are not likely going to check to see if there is a previous owner to an uninhabited island. What's the point, if you plan on winning the coming expansionist wars? It's like Columbus "discovering" the new world, obviously, the American Natives had already found it much long before, as well as the Norsemen before Columbus also.

in the end, though, as we all know to be sad and true, might makes right. therefore, japanese and german invasions into china, korea, france, etc.. usa expansion across america. the list goes on... whoever wins keep the land. whoever loses, loses land. So, if my history books are not lying to me, i think Japan surrendered ww2 after the US dropped 2 bombs? Then the US entered into Cold War with China and USSR. Now we're all confused who owns these uninhabited lands.. All I know for sure if that the US is making money selling weapons to Japan.

It isn't Japan that is becoming an outcast. Japan just gave the Philippines some armed patrol boats to defend their territory and is in discussion with Vietnam to do the same. 1,000 Japanese troops were welcomed in the Philippines to help with hurricane damage and they brought millions of dollars of aid.

Early this year Abe made a speech in India's parliament proposing a "security triangle" with Singapore, Darwin and Okinawa at the apexes. Abe proposed that India and Japan should join the FPDA and that the FPDA should patrol the region in conjunction with the US Pacific Fleet.

If Germany denies Holocaust, as Japan denies Korean sex slaves, what would you call Germany? If German political leaders worship and pay official tributes to Nazi generals, as Japanese politicians including its prime minster do to Japan's war criminals in Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, would that make Germany an outcast? If Hitler's son is the German Chancellor now, as Japan's king is the son of Hirohito who was the leader of Japan during the WW II, would that make Germany an outcast? Japan forced Philippine women into sex slaves during the WW II, and the Japanese military was welcome in the Philippines? Read some history before posting anything here.

The Germans didn't need to apolgise, they had their cities flattened instead. They paid in lives. As did the Japanese, two nuclear bombs to be exact. But China keeps banging on about the "100 years of humiliation" mostly because the communist party stir up nationalist hatred to keep the peasant's anger from being directed at them.

(1) Vice-Pres BIDEN did not ask /demand that China dis-mantle/withdraw the ADIZ -- he merely said that the US is "concerned" . No ultimatum from Biden saying -- "withdraw ADIZ or we go to war" (as Japan had been hoping for the US to say)

(2) Meaning the US accepts the ADIZ will remain in place

(3) In any case, the US Govt had ordered its commercial airlines to comply with China's instructions -- a tight slap in Japan's face

(4) Biden-Xi focussed on many other issues involving US-China mutual interests -- this ADIZ is a non-issue as far as US-China are concerned. Overall-- business as usual for US-China

(5) BY NOT issueing an ultimatum to China to withdraw it----the US is accepting that it is China's right to self-defense

I suspect US administration was duped by pro-Japan lobby and media. After they discovered that Japan claimed a similarly expansive ADIZ over east China sea, to within 100 miles from Chinese shore, they have wisely shifted from early hard-line positions.

I think the USAF had briefed Joe Biden about the difference between ADIZ and Territorial Airspace so that he could explain it to Premier Xi and ask him to get his Air Force to understand it too... That's really all that needs to be done.
Once the Chinese Air Force truly understands what an ADIZ is, then they would realize that some of the demands made have far outstepped the allowable limits of ADIZ.

My guess is that every ADIZ makes similar demands while quietly accepts the reality that other's air force will ignore them. And I know for a fact that Chinese airline flight to South Korea that only travels through Japan's ADIZ files flight plan with Japan.

The significance of this episode is that the air traffic in air space between China and Japan is now discussed and determined between China and the US. As Confucius asked (or would have asked) why talk to the monkey when you can talk to its handler?

The Diaoyu island dispute was left over at the end of WWII, a result of reallocation of the sphere of influence. There is evidence that the sovereignty over the Diayo Island, which was stolen away by Japanese in 1895, belongs to China, but the US handed the right of management of the island over to Japan to the ignorance of its sovereignty, and later on, the defense of island was written into the American Japanese security pact. It is seemingly fair for the US not to take sides in regard to the issue, and that’s why Mr. Panetta paid his visit to Japan, which had not been scheduled before. With the support of the US without and extremist forces within, Japanese government made the issue more and more intensified by nationalizing or buying the island, which was violation of the agreement achieved when China and Japan made their relationship normalized in the early 1970s that a-keep-status-quo attitude be taken and the dispute remain unsettled until the later generation. The tactic to set aside disputes and develop the region in a co-operated way would have been adopted but for the purchase of the island, a farce by Japanese government.

Following are one article written by TE correspondent last year and parts of my comments then, which may serve as a reference and my reply to posters of the comment I posted with regard to this very article earlier.

Attention should be directed to the following sentences in this TE article;

‘The Chinese emperor objected to Japanese attempts to incorporate the Senkakus into Okinawa, but in 1895 Japan did it unilaterally. After Japan’s defeat in 1945 the Americans took over Okinawa’s administration, along with the Senkakus. In the 1951 peace treaty between Japan and the United States, as well as in the agreement to return Okinawa in 1972, the Senkakus’ sovereignty was left vague (Taiwan claims them too). The Americans say the dispute is for the parties to resolve amicably.’

Note:

1. The first word unilateral in italicized form in the first line is a clear indicator that Japan incorporated the Senkakus into Okinawa regardless of objection from the Chinese emperor, which justifies the fact that the Senkakus used to belong to China.
2. The second word administration in the context means the right to manage rather than sovereignty, the power to govern, which is a proof that the sovereignty remained unchanged though the right to manage was handed over to Japan in 1945.
3. Administration doesn’t necessarily secure a lawfully consequence of sovereignty, no matter how long the Senkakus was under the Japanese administration.
4. Without the US involvement, there would have been no such disputes at all. In 1972, it was not clearly stated in the agreement between the US and Japan whether administration or sovereignty be retuned, which leaves a pretext for further engagement for the US. Backed by the US government, there was relief in Tokyo when Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, affirmed that the Senkaku Islands were covered by America's security treaty with Japan.

No, the management of the island was handed over to Japan by US in 1972, not 1945. Both Beijing and Taibei protested, and the 'defend Diaoyu' movement were started in Berkeley by Chinese students, all from Taiwan and HongKong.

Beijing was pretty late to protest officially though. Like December of 1971, after the Reversion was already signed and ratified by both parties.
`
Now how much did the PRC care? Considering the welcome given to Nixon, relative quiescence over Linebacker, and concerns over the Soviets?
`
If you said not much came out of it because everyone was still bugged out by the Lin Biao incident, the aftermath of the cultural revolution, the Soviet threat, and Mao getting a little on the old side - I could buy that….

Actually, Beijing could not 'officially' protest in 1971, as Taibei was China's official representative in the UN.
And I don't think Beijing even know of Diaoyu dispute at that time, it probably thought Diaoyu was already under Taibei's control and it was lent to the US by Taibei as a bombing range.

The status quo should be maintained to defuse tensions.From the article it is clear that Japan owns these islands.PRC as the rising power should be careful of avoiding browbeating its smaller neighbours in the interests of long term peace & friendly economic ties, which are far more important than jingoism based on (perceived) past wrongs & associated emotional upsurges in its domestic constituency.I expect the US to fully support its allies, reduce the tensions and smooth frayed nerves from both sides, given its pre-eminent position as the world's sole economic & military superpower.Expect enlightened self interest to take centre stage in PRC also.Thank you.

China's stated position is to return to the status quo before 2012, when Japan 'nationalized' the island, maybe to preempt more aggressive change of status quo by Japanese right wingers, but was a change of status quo nevertheless. In fact, before 2012 Chinese government routinely harassed even arrested activists who trying to land on Diaoyu to claim Chinese sovereignty.

Since the return to that status quo is impossible now under Abe, China has called repeatedly to negotiate the dispute with Japan, but Japan insists that there is no dispute, hence no need to talk.